Article 1171
Where two or more persons separately commit tortious acts and cause the same damage, and each person's tortious acts are sufficient to cause all the damages, the perpetrators shall be jointly and severally liable.
1. The main purpose of this article
This article is a provision on joint and several liability for separate infringement where the causes are superimposed.
II. Evolution of the Provisions
This article follows the provisions of Article 11 of the original Tort Liability Law, which absorbs the provisions of judicial interpretations. Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injuries (Fa Shi [2003] No. 20) promulgated by the Supreme People's Court in 2003 stipulates that: "Where two or more persons cause damage to others with joint intention or joint negligence, or if there is no joint intention or joint negligence, but the same harmful consequences occur directly in combination with their infringing acts, it constitutes joint infringement and shall be jointly and severally liable in accordance with Article 130 of the General Principles of the Civil Law." Among them, "although there is no joint intent or joint negligence, but the infringement acts are directly combined to produce the same harmful consequences", that is, the provisions on the competing infringement of aggregation.
3. Interpretation of Provisions
This article provides for the superimposed separate torts and liabilities.
Separate tort refers to the tortious act of a majority of two or more persons who commit the tortious act separately and are not related to each other, but cause the same damage result, and do not constitute a joint tortfeasor. The superimposed separate torts are that when each infringer commits the tortious act separately and causes the same damage result, the causal force of each actor's act is 100%, that is, each act is the entire cause of the damage. The tortious acts committed by each individual tortfeasor are superimposed in terms of causal force, and the acts of each individual are the entire cause of the damage. Hence the situation of "100% + 100% = 100%".
The rules of liability for superimposed separate torts are:
(1) Since the acts of each individual tortfeasor are 100% causal force for the occurrence of damages, and the liability for compensation is one, each infringer can only bear joint and several liability, and each infringer should be liable for the damage of the infringed party.
(2) The specific share shall be determined on the basis of the number of perpetrators, and in the case of two persons, each person shall bear 50% of the responsibility.
(3) The separate tortfeasor who bears more than his own share shall have the right to recover compensation from the separate tortfeasor who has not borne or has not borne enough.
4. Cases
Zeng Mouqing v. Peng Mouhong and an insurance company in a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute
Facts: At around 7 p.m. on a certain day, an unknown driver drove a truck with an unknown license plate and collided with Zeng Mouqing who was crossing the road and fled; At about 19:05, when Peng Mouhong drove a small car through the section of the road where the incident occurred, due to the failure to brake, he ran over Zeng Mouqing, who had fallen in the middle of the road, and immediately stopped to call the police. After on-site rescue, it was determined that Zeng Mouqing had no vital signs. The court of first instance held that the rolling of each vehicle was sufficient to cause all the damage, so it ruled that Peng Mouhong and the hit-and-run party should be jointly and severally liable in accordance with article 11 of the Tort Liability Law. The court of second instance held that before Peng Mouhong drove over Zeng Mouqing, an unknown driver had collided with Zeng Mouqing and escaped. Although the unknown driver and Peng Mouhong did not have common intent or joint negligence, each of them independently constituted a tort against Zeng Mouqing, and ultimately caused the harmful consequences of Zeng Mouqing's death, which were inseparable, and each person's actions were sufficient to cause Zeng Mouqing's death. Therefore, it was not improper for the original judgment to determine that Peng Mouhong and the hit-and-run party were jointly and severally liable for compensation in accordance with article 11 of the Tort Liability Law. In the case of other perpetrators escaping, Zeng Mouqing requested Peng Mouhong to bear all the responsibilities that all infringers should bear, which is in accordance with the law.
5. Analysis
In this case, the victim may have died after the first run-over, while the second and third cars were only running over the body. The victim may also die as a result of compound injuries that form after two or three rolls. In fact, this is not important, because article 11 of the Tort Law requires "sufficient" and not "necessary". From a factual point of view, the victim was not dead at the time of the third car run-over, and it is not possible to determine which vehicle caused the victim's death, but it can be confirmed that the crushing of each vehicle was sufficient to cause the victim's death. Therefore, from the perspective of causal force, when the first and second vehicles ran over the victim, even if the victim did not die, the victim was injured as a result of the rollover, which was enough to lead to the death consequence. Even if there is no first and second car running, the third car alone has a sufficient probability of causing the victim's death. Therefore, the drivers of the first, second and third vehicles should be jointly and severally liable. However, in the allocation of internal liability, the share of responsibility of Peng Mouhong, the driver of the third car, should be the smallest.